THE COMMISSION, 


Lek AR’ 
Oc Ti 


ait les 
ay 19 oo TY | i 


APOSTOLIC ‘BAPTISM, 


t yt OD > 


IN ITS SUBJECTS AND MODE. 


CONTAINING 
THE SUBSTANCE OF A DISCOURSE, ek a, MAY 25, 1851, 
IN THE MEETING HOUSE OF THE FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH, 
| NEW YORK CITY. 


ALSO, STRICTURES. ON DR. EDWARD ROBINSON’S ARTICLE ON 
BAPTI1IZO, AND THE LATE DR. SAMUEL MILLER’S REMARKS 
ON THAT WORD IN HIS WORK ON BAPTISM. 


BY REV, JAMES LILLIE, M.D. 


New-DVork : 


PUBLISHED BYE. H. TRIPP,272 GREENWICH STREET. 


1851. 


TO SPENCER H. CONE, D.D. 


My VENERABLE AND BELOVED PASTOR, 


I know no one to whom I can with so much propriety dedicate the 
following pages as yourself. 

A‘ remarkable Providence guided me to your friendly counsel, when my 
hereditary convictions on Baptism had given way ; and it was in your pulpit, that 
the substance of these views was given, on the morning of that day, on which 
your paternal hand, helped me to follow our Blessed Master fully, when I was 
“ buried with Him by immersion into death.” 

That your valuable life may be long spared, to dispense the Divine rite to 
hundreds and thousands of believers, is the prayer of, my dear Pastor, 


Your affectionate and faithful brother in Christ, 


J. LILLIE, 


Holman & Gray, Printers, 
146 William St., N. Y. 


ev 


“> 


ond 


1422 


0 


WT alc \. 


PREFACE. 


WueEn a man, who for years has been a guide to others in 
the things of God, changes his views on one of the two great 
ordinances of Christ, he should not be unwilling to give a reason 
for his conduct with “ meekness and fear.” his the author has 
endeavored to do in the following pages. Had he not believed 
them fitted in some measure to explain that Divine Rule,—the 
__ Apostolic Commission, which surely, like “all Scripture,” is given 
by i inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, 
for correction, for instruction in righteousness,” he would not have 
yielded to the opinion of brethren in regard to their publication. 

Should any one think that an undue prominence is given to 
Calvin in the discussion, he is reminded, that the writings of 
that great man have had, in all probability, more influence than 
those of any other writer during the last 300 years, in preventing 
the Reformation from reaching what, in the author’s judgment, 
ought to be regarded as the most ancient, the most inveterate, 


and most plausible perversion of Apostolic Christianity—infant 


. immersion or sprinkling. He was such an unrivalled combina- 


iL! tion of juvenile yet matured scholarship and keen comprehensive 


intellect, as soon to take the lead of Luther himself in guiding 
the course of the Reformation, and in moulding the minds of its 
successive generations. If the prevailing opinion regarding 


PREFACE. 


baptism could be defended, beyond all doubt his was the arm to 
baffle and prostrate every assailant. 

The special attention paid to Dr. E. Robinson, was prompted 
by the acknowledged talent, learning and piety, of that distin- 
guished cultivator of sacred criticism. These gifts render his 
mistakes concerning Christ’s commands much more dangerous 
than those of common men, and call so much the more loudly 
for prompt notice, and careful correction. While exercising his 
Christian liberty, and obeying his convictions of duty, in pointing 
out what the author must consider the palpable deviations from 
the plainest rules of criticism in Dr. R.’s article on baptizo, he 
trusts he has not forgotten his personal obligation for the impor- 
tant aid which he, in common with all the students of the Bible 
throughout Christendom, has derived from Dr. R.’s past labors. 

The late excellent Dr. Samuel Miller’s work on Baptism has 
been selected as the subject of a few strictures, on account of 
its wide circulation among that denomination with which the 
writer was recently connected. The author would be sorry 
indeed, if any thing herein contained, could be justly construed 
as deficient in respect, to the memory of a man whom it was his 
privilege to know and love, or as evincing any thing but disin- 
terested affection, to that large and respectable denomination of 
Protestants, from whom in general he always received the most 
generous sympathy, and the most liberal appreciation of his very 
imperfect services. 

If this small work shall be owned of God, in leading any of 
those to whom its author has preached the precious gospel, or 
any others, better to understand and obey the Divine Author of 
Baptism, its object will have been gained. 


New-York, 311 Henry St., 
July, 1851. - 


SERMON. 


Marr. 28: 18, 19, 20, “ All power is given to me in heaven 
and in earth, go ye therefore and disciple all nations; bapti- 
zing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I 
have commanded you, and lo Tam with you always, even to 
the end of the world.” 


Tuese words were spoken by the Son of God immediately 
before his ascension. to the right hand of his Father. They 
convey his last commands to his church, and nothing can be 
more important than that his church should rightly apprehend 
them. They bring before us the five following topics: 

I. Christ’s universal authority under the Father, “ All power 
is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” 

II. His command to “disciple all nations.” 

III. His command to baptize the disciples. 

IV. His command to instruct the disciples in the Keepiie of 
all his laws; and 

Y. His assurance that his gracious presence should be vouch- 
safed to his church till his return, “And lo I am with you 
always, even to the end of the world.” 


I. Christ’s universal authority under the Father, “All power,” 
&c. This power is the foundation of these commands to disciple 
the nations, and baptize the disciples, and if we truly honor the 
Son to whom all judgment has been committed, as we do the 
Father who committed it, we must tremble to think of allowing 
pride, or prejudice, or inattention, or indolence, or fear of temporal 

5 


6 


inconveniences, to tamper with those last injunctions. “The 
Father hath given Jesus power over all flesh, to give eternal life 
to as many as the Father hath given him.”—John 1: 2. “Let 
all the world know assuredly ;”—all the world shall know, sooner 
or later, “ that God hath made that same Jesus ” whom the Jews 
crucified, “ both Lord and Christ.”—Acts 2: 3,6. “ For to this 
end Christ both died and revived that he might be the Lord both 
of the dead and the living."— Rom. 14:9. “Let this mind be 
in you which was also in Christ Jesus ; who being in the form 
of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made 
himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a ser- 
vant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found 
in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient 
unto death, even the death of the cross; wherefore God also 
hath highly exalted him, and given him a name that is above 
every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, 
of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the 
earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is 
Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”—Phi. 2: 5, 11. 

Il. What, then, is the first command of ‘this universal Lord ? 
“ Go, disciple all nations,” or as Mark hath it, “ Preach the gos- 
pel to every creature.” Now it seems almost too obvious for 
remark, that this command cannot possibly have any reference, 
except to those capable of listening to preaching, and conse- 
quently of becoming disciples. It seems impossible, then, to 
find infants in the apostolic commission. This, however, is not 
merely admitted, but loudly insisted on by the great theologian 
of the reformation, John Calvin—and he argues very earnestly 
that it is impossible to found any argument on it against infant 
baptism. If it have nothing to do with infants, how, he trium- 
phantly demands, can it prove that infants should not be bapti- 
zed? The answer is, that very silence is itself a loud prohibition. 
Baptism is a positive institution, the very essence of which con- 
sists in what is simply enjoined. For any one to add to the 
command or to take from it, is to subvert the authority on which 
the whole rests. Calvin explodes the sign of the cross, the 
oil, the saliva, and the blowing of the priest, which Rome has 
appended to the ordinance of baptism, and he thinks himself 


has 


7 


justified on the simple ground that these mummeries are not 
enjoined. But is this reason not just as strong for denying 
infant baptism ? The law under which the apostles preached 
and baptized—the law under which the church now preaches 
and baptizes, says not one word about infants ; who then may 
baptize them, without impeaching the wisdom of the lawgiver ? 
Christ said in effect, baptize believers, but not a syllable more. 
Shall we pretend to obey him by baptizing those who cannot 
believe ? 

The whole doctrine of the Sacraments as laid down by Calvin 
(in the 14 c. IV B. of In.) is inconsistent with infant baptism. 
He defines a sacrament to be :— 


“ An outward sign by which the Lord seals on our consciences 
the promises of his good will toward us, to support the weakness 
of our faith, and we on our part testify our piety toward him.” 


Now as infants have no faith, either weak or strong, it 
is plain there is nothing in them for the sacraments to act upon, 
and it is equally impossible for them to meet the other part of 
the definition of “testifying their piety toward God.” The 
definition, therefore, throughout, excludes infants. Calvin again 
defines a sacrament :— 


“A testimony of the grace of God towards us, confirmed by 
an outward sign, with a reciprocal attestation of our. faith 
toward him.” 


But an infant cannot receive that testimony, it cannot perceive 
the sign, it cannot testify its faith ; how then can an infant receive 
such an ordinance? Inthe IVth Sec. he quotes Augustine with 
approbation, who demands :— 


“ Whence does water derive such great virtue as at once to 
touch the body and purify the heart, except from the word? 
Not because it is spoken, but because it is believed.” 


If then the water only benefit through faith—if the heart is 
purified only by believing the word spoken in baptism, why give 
the rite to one who cannot believe 2? The Shorter Catechism imi- 
tates this inconsistency. It defines a sacrament as “an ordinance 
that represents seals, and applies Christ and his benefits to 
believers.” How then can it do any of those things to a child 
that does not believe? Itis surely a remarkable fact, that neither 
Calvin nor the Westminster divines could frame a definition of a 


8 


sacrament, that did not by the plainest implication, shut out 
infants, from all participation. 

There is a very remarkable passage in the XI Vth Sec. in which 
Calvin complains of some ‘‘ who,” to use his own words :— 


“ Attribute to the sacraments I know not what latent virtues, 
which are nowhere represented as communicated to them by the 
word of God. By this error the simple and inexperienced are 
dangerously deceived, being taught to seek the gifts of God where 
they can never be found, and being gradually drawn away from 
God to embrace mere vanity instead of his truth. For the sophisti- 
cal schools have maintained with one consent, that the sacraments 
of the new law, or those now used in the Christian church, 
justify and confer grace, provided we do not obstruct their opera- 
tions by any mortal sin. It is impossible to express the pestilent 
and fatal nature of this opinion, and especially as it has prevailed 
over a large part of the world to the great detriment of the 
church for many ages past. Indeed it is evidently diabolical, for 
by promising justification without faith it precipitates souls into 
destruction ; in the next place, by representing the sacraments 
as the cause of justification, it envelopes the minds of men, 
naturally too much inclined to the earth, in gross superstition, 
leading them to rest on a corporeal object rather than in God 
himself. Of these two evils I wish we had not such ample expe- 
rience, as to supersede the necessity of much proof. What isa 
sacrament taken without faith but the most certain ruin of the 
church ?” 


This is worthy of the reputation of Calvin as a teacher of 
righteousness. But then, how does it harmonize with what he 
declares in the next chapter, Sec. ITI ?— 


“We ought to conclude’at whatever time we are baptized we 
are at once washed and purified for the whole life.” 


That is, every one who has been sprinkled in infancy “ ought 
to conclude himself washed and purified for his whole life.” 
Now can human wit shield Calvin from his own denuncia- 
tion of teaching diabolical doctrine? He assures me that 
the baptism which I cannot remember, and never knew, 
purifies me for my whole life, and yet declares that to 
promise “justification without faith, precipitates souls into 
destruction, and sacraments without faith are the ruin of the 
church.” Can aman be washed and purified for his whole life 
without being justified? No wonder Puseyites and anti-Pusey- 
ites claim Calvin. Thus it must ever furn out, when men, 


ss 


9 


however strong, attempt impossibilities. Samson will gain his 
end no matter whether he grapple with the gates of Gaza or the 
pillars of Dagon; they will bow before the power that his hand 
wields; but if in an evil hour he lay his head in the lap of 
Delilah, and listen to her counsels, he shall become the scorn of 
the enemies of: God, and weak as another man. 

This undeniable contradiction will be found to pervade the 
theology of all the Reformed denominations. For example, it 
meets us in the Shorter Catechism, which defines baptism as 
“sealing our engrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits 
of the covenant of grace;” and yet declares that ‘‘ sacraments do 
not profit by any virtue in them, but solely by the blessing of 
Christ and the working of his Spirit in them that by faith re- 
ceive them.” Here all those sprinkled in infancy, are taught, that 
baptism sealed their engrafting into Christ, and their partaking 
of the benefits of the covenant of grace, but all undue elation at 
the value of the favor is taken away, when we are assured, that 
without faith, it is impossible either baptism or the Supper can do 
us any good. Unless then, we can believe, that we did believe, 
when we were babes, we are not likely to derive much encour- 
agement from what was done in our infancy. 

The Westminster Confession (ch. 28,) declares baptism a “ sign 
and seal of regeneration and remission of sins to the party bap- 
tized.” Yet (in chap. 11.) we are assured that “faith receiving 
Christ is the alone instrument of justification”, and consequently 
of remission of sins. Thus the Confession teaches a double remis- 
sion ; the first, when baptism seals us the children of God, and the 
second, when we believe. But this second remission would seem 
to be a superfluity, because, as the Confession says (28: 6) “the 
efficacy of baptism, is not tied to that moment of time wherein 
it is administered.” It is therefore a perennial fountain of 
remission, and if so, it washes out our sins, as fast as they are 
committed. What then is left for faith to do? Is it not made 
void? And if Luther was right when he said, that justification 
by faith alone, was the article of a standing church, and if Calvin 
was right, when he declared sacraments without faith, to be the 
ruin of the church, what must we think of infant baptism as set 


10 


forth by these excellent Reformers, and the learned and pious 
Divines of Westminster ? 

The otherwise admirable forms of the Synod of Dort are 
spoiled and eaten through by this moth. The Heidelbergh Cate- 
chism in the 25th Lord’s-day, assures us that “we are made par- 
takers of Christ, and his benefits by faith only”; but inthe 26th 
we find out that there must be some mistake about it, as we are 
told “that Christ appointed this external washing with water, 
adding thereto this promise, that I am as certainly washed by his 
blood and Spirit from all my sins as I am washed externally with 
water.” Before “ faith came,” then, to my soul, yes, long years 
before, I was, it seems, all washed. In the Compendium, &c., 
we are told “ we are righteous before God only by a true faith in 
Jesus Christ,” and yet “the water in baptism seals the washing 
away of our sins by the blood of Christ.” Of course, then, we 
are righteous long before we have faith. In the Confession, &c., 
chap. 22, “Faith is the only means of justification ;” but in chap. 
34 we are assured that when “the Ministers administer that 
which is visible, the Lord gives invisible grace, washing our 
souls, renewing our hearts, putting on us the new man,” and 
that “this baptism doth not only avail us at the time the water 
is poured on us, and received by us, but also through the whole 
course of our life.” “Therefore,” the good fathers add, “we 
detest, the error of the anabaptists.” The Liturgy of the Reformed 
Dutch Church tells us “ when we are baptized in the name of 
the Father, God the Father witnesseth and sealeth unto us that 
he doth make an eternal covenant of grace with us and adopts . 
us for his children and heirs, and therefore will provide us with 
every good thing, and avert all evil, or turn it to our profit,” &e. 

It may be well for the orthodox of the Presbyterian, and Ref. 
Dutch Churches, to consider, how far they differ from the Bishop 
of Exeter, and the church of Rome, on the subject of baptism. 

The Catechumen in the Episcopal church is asked by the 
Bishop, What is your name ? and answers N. or M. Bishop.— 
Who gave you this name? Cat.—My sponsors in baptism ; 
wherein I was made a member of Christ, a child of God, and 
an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven, In the form of the 


* 


11 


public baptism of infants, the minister, after dipping the child 
discreetly, or pouring water on it, &., &c., says, “ this child is 
regenerate, and grafted into the body of Christ’s church.” And 
the 27th Article of Religion teaches that “ the promises of the 
forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by 
the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed in baptism. Yet 
the 11th Article declares that “we are justified by faith only.” 
Mr. Gorham holds by the one Article ; his Bishop by the other 
and by the form and Catechism. Both are inconsistent and 
partial; why not insist equally on all ? 

The Catechetical instruction of the Episcopal churches of 
America and England, just quoted, has been adopted by the 
Methodist Episcopal church. 

Sensible that it was impossible to vindicate infant baptism 
from the Apostolic Commission, Calvin took care to transfer the 
cause from the New Testament to the Old, from the command of 
Christ to the covenant of Abraham; and all succeeding genera- 
tions of Paedobaptists have found it necessary to follow his 
example. But this seems a virtual abandonment of the field ; 
for where must the mind of Christ be looked for, on the subject 
of baptism, if notin the very law of baptism itself. Is it possi- 
ble that Christ’s little ones, cannot understand their duty on 
baptism, whether in regard to themselves or their children, with- 
out unravelling all the intricacies of the Abrahamic Covenant ? 

The argument from circumcision proceeds on the assumption 
that the Christian rite, has come in the room of the Abrahamic. 
But surely this is not self evident, and how is it proved? There 
is not merely no scriptural authority for such an allegation, 1t 
may on the contrary be demonstrated to be utterly inconsistent 
with the plainest facts in the apostolic history. For if baptism 
has come in the place of circumcision, how could there have 
been any controversy whether circumcision were binding on the 
Gentiles? How could the Council at Jerusalem have been so 
inconsiderate as to forget to cut the matter short, by declaring the 
alleged fact of the one ordinance having supplanted the other ? 
How could Paul, writing to the Galatians on the very subject of 
the freedom of the Gentiles from the yoke of circumcision, fail 


12 


- 


to remove every scruple from the minds of the Galatians, by 
assuring them that their baptism was intended by Christ to take 
the place of the ancient rite? But he was entirely silent on this 
modern substitution. Nay, how could Paul take Timothy, and 
circumcise him after he had been baptized, if the one ordinance 
just filled the place of the other? This surely wasa superfluous 
labor,—a most unnecessary interruption of the labors of the 
Evangelist. 

In answer to the demand of the opponents of infant baptism, 
for some express command, or example authorizing the practice, 
itis usual for Paedobaptists, to call for evidence, that the spiritual 
relation between the Jew and his child, has been abrogated under 
the gospel. Great indignation is expressed, that the situation 
of infants under the gospel should be worse than under the law. 
Now it is sufficient, to shew the hollowness of this pretext, to 
remember that the supposed spiritual connexion, between the Jew 
and his child, is a mere gratuitous assumption, contradicted by 
the plainest facts in the case. Ishmael was circumcised as well 
as Isaac, but surely he was not a spiritual descendant of the 
patriarch. Esau as well as Jacob had the sign, but was no son 
of Isaac by faith. Grace never ran in the blood under the law, 
any more than under the gospel. The profaneness of the vast 
majority of the descendants of Abraham in all ages, demonstrates 
that if circumcision was intended to seal the personal righteous- 
ness of the circumcised, it generally failed; it was a seal hanging 
to a blank or blurred parchment. As the God of Abraham is a 
God of truth and order, he never appointed such a seal. True, 
he did promise to be the God not only of Abraham but of his 
seed, but that promise never bound him to take Annas and 
Caiaphas to his bosom, or to recognise Judas as any thing but the 
“Son of perdition.” Yet they all had the seal. That seal then 
was never intended to signify the renewed nature of ordinary 
receivers. It was a seal of the righteousness of the faith of 
Abraham and of no other man; for it is of him alone that 
Paul declares, Rom. 4:11, “ And he received circumcision, a seal 
of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncir- 
cumcised.” But it was no seal of faith in either Isaac or Jacob, 


o 


13 


because when put on them they had no faith to be sealed. Now 
it is only by the gratuitous and groundless extension to all the 
descendants of Abraham, of what was true of Abraham alone, 
that any color has been given-to the argument for infant baptism. 
It has been asserted thousands of times, for hundreds of years, 
(no wonder it is generally believed in a world like this,) God 
bestowed spiritual blessings on the sons of Abraham, and sealed 
these blessings with circumcision. Similar blessings are con- 
ferred on the children of believers, and they are sealed by bap- 
tism. But the whole fabric falls, when it is perceived, that 
circumcision never performed any such office, and we need not 
be surprised if infant baptism, proceeding on a mistake so 
palpable, should in all ages have shown itself as inefficacious in 
securing the piety of the recipient, as the severer rite under the 
patriarch. Still the promise concerning the seed was not in vain. 
It had a threefold aspect. It was mainly fulfilled in Christ. 
“He says not to secds as of many, but to thy seed which is 
Christ.” Secondly, it concerns all believers under the gospel 
who are “blessed with faithful Abraham,” and “heirs according 
to the promise.” And lastly, it secures the ultimate restoration 
of the literal Israel and the final salvation of the nation, for the 
“beloved for the fathers’ sakes shall be grafted in again,” and 
“ali Israel shall be saved.” Rom. 11. Circumcision had thus 
a threefold significancy. It marked out the nation in which the 
Savior of the world was to be born; it was a symbol of the 
purity which was to be the characteristic of the true Israel of 
all ages, and it was a badge of the wonderful race who were 
always to “dwell alone” and never “to be reckoned among the 
nations.”—Num. 23: 9. 

This spiritual meaning of circumcision is the fact relied on in 
the paedobaptist argument. Baptism it is alleged has the same 
meaning. The two rites then are the same in substance and 
differ only in form, and if an infant received the one by divine 
appointment, why not the other? Just because God has not 
required it. He commanded Abraham to circumcise his male chil- 
dren, but has not commanded us to baptize any of our children. 
Bothare merely positive commands and obedience to each must be 


2 


14 


limited exactly to the word of the precept. To say that because 
both signify the removal of moral defilement, they ought there- 
fore to be administered to the same subjects, is to substitute a 
human inference for a divine command. Besides, the paedobap- 
tist is inconsistent even on his own principle. For baptism and 
the Lord’s Supper signify substantially the same thing—the ap- 
plication of the blood of Christ for our cleansing. If then 
infants receive baptism, why not the Supper? So reasons the 
Greek church, and so far she is consistent. So doubtless fancied 
the superstition of the 3d century, which brought forth infant 
communion as the twin of infant baptism. 

The first names in the Biblical Criticism of Germany, have 
abandoned the argument from circumcision, in behalf of infant 
baptism, as well as all thesupposed proofs in the New Testament. 
Schleiermacher confesses “ all traces of infant baptism, which one 
will find in the New Testament, must first be put into it.” Gese- 
nius, Neander, Olshausen, indeed the German scholars generally, 
though belonging to paedobaptist churches, never pretend that 
infant immersion, or any other form of the rite, was practised by 
the Apostles. till they vindicate infant baptism on their own 
ground; and thus their testimony has all the weight peculiarly 
and properly belonging to the evidence of adversaries. They 
contemplate the church as a living body, going on to perfection, 
developing herself in accordance with her divine constitution. 
They argue, therefore, that although Paul knew nothing of infant 
sprinkling, the church had a right to introduce both, in her pro- 
gress toward ideal perfection. For example, Neander tells us 
that the word holy, applied in 1 Cor. 7:14, to the children of 
mixed marriages, contains the germ of infant baptism, though 
the Apostle was not aware of it. So then this modern converted 
Jew, (modest as his admirers fancy him,) pretends to know 
more about that epistle to the Corinthians, than the ancient Jew 


converted on the road to Damascus, whom the Holy Spirit em- ° 


ployed to pen the letter. The man who studied theology among 
the infidels of Germany, is wiser it seems about a Christian 
ordinance, than he who was admitted a student in the highest 
heavens, with Moses and Elijah, Gabriel and the angels, as his 


15 


fellows! ! I cannot believe this. On the contrary I denounce it 
as a daring device of Satan, to make it impossible “to contend 
earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints.” Jude who 
gave that injunction, evidently supposed that the faith was some- 
thing divinely perfect in itself, which, amid all attempts to cor- 
rupt it, was to be appealed to as delivered by the Divine Savior 
to men “chosen before of God.” Nay, how did the Savior refute 
the licentious expounders of the law of marriage, but by pointing 
them to paradise, and reminding them how things were “ at the 
beginning.” 

In exposing the formalists who destroyed the fifth command- 
ment, Christ brings them back to the simple institute. The cor- 
rupters might have pretended that the change which they had 
introduced was a more perfect development of divine life in the 
church ; that the Mosaic command merely called for a gift to an 
earthly father, but their improvement, had elevated it into a gift 
to their Father in Heaven. But however ready to find excuses 
for their wickedness, they seem to have been totally ignorant of 
this German refinement, and had not a word to say when Christ 
told them “ ye make void the law of God by your traditions.” 

Let these Germans then be kept in their own place. As wit- 
nesses about a fact in Church History, we give them all homage. 
About the inference to be drawn from the fact we will think for 
ourselves. They allow that Christ commanded believers alone 
to be baptized, and that the Apostles never imagined infants to 
be included. As followers of them, even as they were of their 
Lord in this, we dare not baptize an infant. 

III. I come now to the command, baptize the disciples; 
“baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
of the Holy Spirit”. What are we to understand by the word 
bapiizantes, in Christ’s command? There has been much useless 
wrangling, about a very plain matter. Calvin tells us in his 
Institutes, “it is agreed that the very word signifies to immerse, 
and that the rite of immersion was observed by the ancient 
church.” Luther declares “ the term baptismos is a Greek 
word. It may besrendered a dipping, and though that custom 
be quite abolished among the generality, (for neither do they 


16 


entirely dip their children, but only sprinkle them with a little 
water,) nevertheless they ought to be wholly immersed.” Sal- 
masius says, ‘‘ baptismos is immersion ; and was administered in 
ancient times according to the force and meaning of the word. 
Now it is only rhantism, or sprinkling, not immersion or dip- 
ping.” “ Christ commanded us,” says Beza, “ baptizesthai by 
which it is certain immersion is signified.” Vitringa declares 
“the act of baptizing is the immersion of believers in water.” 
This ‘‘ expresses the force of the word. Thus also it was per- 
formed by Christ and his apostles.” ‘“ Baptismes and bap- 
tisma,” says Burmannus, “if you consider their etymology 
properly signify immersion.” “And Jesus when he was baptized 
went up straightway out of the water.” Casaubon, whom the 
haughty Horsley compliments as one of the three £ whom he 
would take off his hat on a question of Greek philology—Scaliger 
and Bentley being the other two—Casaubon, I say, declares “ This 
was the rite of baptizing, that persons were plunged into the 
water, which the very word baptizein sufficiently declares. 
Whence we understand it was not without reason, that some 
long ago insisted on the immersion of the whole body in the 
ceremony of baptism.” Richard Bentley, (the man to whom 
Horsley would doff his mitre on Greek,) explains baptismous, 
dippings. Bossuet, Bishop of Meaux, the subtlest adversary of 
protestantism, declares, “To baptize signifies to plunge as is 
granted by all the world.” John Selden, unrivalled in his 
knowledge of Ecclesiastical antiquity, tells us“ In England, of 
late years, I ever thought the parson baptized his own fingers 
rather than the child.” 

John Milton, the most learned as well as sublimest of all 
poets, in his Paradise Lost, B. 12, describes the apostles as going 
forth 


“ To teach all nations what of him they learned 
And his salvation ; them who shall believe 
Baptizing in the profluent stream, the sign 
Of washing them from guilt of sin, to life 
Pure.” 


Porson, who succeeded Bentley as the greatest Grecian of his 
age, being asked by an Episcopalian whether they or the Bap- 


~ 


17 


tists were right about baptizo, smiled and said, “The Baptists 
have the advantage of us, it means immerse and nothing but 
immerse.” 

Here we have twelve witnesses of every country, of every 
creed, Protestant, Popish and Congregational, all agreeing with 
one mouth regarding the meaning, the exclusive meaning, of the 
word that Christ employs. It is immerse, and so far as we can 
find from them, nothing butimmerse. And when we remember 
that not one of these practised immersion, and that, so far as 
their opinion went, it condemned themselves, surely we have a 
much clearer and more convincing body of evidence, than can be 
produced on any other matter, that has been so much contro- 
verted. 

In answer then to our question what are we to understand by 
the word baptizantes in our Lord’s command, the word will 
bear no meaning but 7mmersing. 

If this requires any farther illustration we may find it by 
reflecting on the simple question, Is it not certain that our Lord 
must have meant that believers in his name, should be baptized, 
in the same mode, in which he himself was baptized by John ? 
Now was that not by immersion? Why was therite performed 
in the Jordan? Was it that the Baptist might sprinkle or pour 
a few drops on that sacred head which bowed on the tree for us ? 
Calvin, commenting on John 3: 22, 23, says, “But we may 
gather from these words that baptism was celebrated by John 
and Christ by a submersion of the whole body.” Nor does 
Calvin stand alone. The greatest names in sacred literature for 
1500 years might be produced by scores to prove the same thing. 
If any thing is certain in the Bible, this cannot be reasonably 
denied, that Christ commanded believers to be immersed, and 
that before he gave the command, he set them the example. If 
then in all things he set us an example, that we should follow 
his steps, how comes it to pass that the vast majority of believers 
have never followed their leader, beneath the mystic element ? 
If ever a great mind in modern days feared God, and desired to 
honor his Son, that mind, as I think, was John Calvin’s. How 
came it to pass then, that this mighty intellect, illumined with 


18 


all the learning of ages, and breathing daily unwearied devotion 
to his God and Savior, should have allowed that Christ 
commanded believers to be zmmersed, and did as he com- 
manded, and that he (Calvin) lived and labored and died 
without ever doing as his Lord enjoined? Hereis a paradox 


that may well puzzle the Christian Philosopher! In the very ~ 


passage where Calvin confesses that Christ was submersed, he 
seems to have feared that the reader might have some misgiving 
whether it might not be necessary to follow Christ’s example, 
and immediately adds, “ But we need not trouble ourselves 
about the external rite, provided it agree with spiritual truth 
and with the institution and rule of the Lord.” “ The institu- 
tion and rule of the Lord! Why, Calvin! have you not just 
told us that Christ was submersed? Have you not said that 
when he gave his command he said, Teach all nations, immersing 
them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and the 
Holy Spirit? Can any thing agree with his institution, and 
rule, and example, but immersing believers? When you were 
in your mother’s arms, and could not believe, a few drops were 
sprinkled on your face by a slave of Antichrist. Call you that 
a compliance with the rule and institution of Christ ? How have 
you been led to fancy that sprinkling a few drops on the face of 
one that does not believe, should be the same as immersing a 
believer ? Is sprinkling immersing? Is a babe, that knows not 
its right hand from its left, a believer ? 

The “spiritual truth ” likewise, demonstrated by Paul, (Rom. 
6: 3, 4,) is completely lost sight of in the human invention of 
infant sprinkling. ‘“ Know ye not,” says the Apostle, “that so 
many of us, as were immersed into Jesus Christ, were immersed 
into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by immer- 
sion into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead, 
by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in new- 
ness of life.” Here we are taught that the believer’s death with 
Christ to sin, is symbolized by his burial in the water, and his 
rising with Christ to a new and heavenly life, is figured in his 
rising from the watery grave. This great lesson is entirely lost 
in infant sprinkling. There we have no mystic burial, nor resur- 
rection, and the faith that embraces the Savior, which is the 


wy 


19 


foundation of the whole operation, having no place in infants, 
the spiritual meaning of the ordinance, as well as its symbolical 
expression, must be entirely lost. This exposition, so simple, 
beautiful and expressive, has commended itself not only to the 
universal acceptance of the Baptists, but to the general adoption 
of infant baptizers of the highest learning and piety, from Chry- 
sostom to Chalmers, for 1400 years. It is plain that Calvin’s 
external rite just as little agrees with “ spiritual truth” as with 
“the institution and rule of the Lord.” 

Calvin’s comment on the baptism of the Eunuch is entitled to 
special notice. 

Acts 8: 38—“ Here we clearly see what was the rite of bapti- 
zing among the ancients ; for they plunged the whole body into 


water. Now the practice has prevailed for the minister merely 
to sprinkle the body or the head.” 


Now, we are here entitled to ask, who were the ancients that 
plunged the whole body into water? Were they not Christ and 
his Apostles? Who came after them in the Christian church, that 
were entitled to originate a different practice ? Calvin allows that 
Christ said zmmerse, at the very time when he declared “all power 
is given me in heaven and on earth.” Is it not a daring assault 
on the mediatorial authority of the Lord for any mortal to say 
sprinkle? It is of no use to tell us the practice of sprinkling “has 
prevailed.” We still demand by whose authority ? Did Christ 
repeal his statute of immersion? No! But Calvin tells us “such 
a trifling difference as that between sprinkling and immersion, is 
not a matter of such moment, as that we should on that account 
divide the church or disturb it by brawls.” Such a trifling differ- 
ence, most illustrious Reformer, and where did you learn that the 
difference was so trifling ? “ Tantillum” forsooth! Does not the 
Lord whom you adore and for whom you would daily lay down 
your life, say immerse 2 Do you not say it is allowed he said 
so? Well, was the word a trifling one? My brethren, did ue 
ever speak a trifling word, from the hour when he astonished the 
doctors in his Father’s house, till the hour when he said immerse ? 
Nay, I exult in the belief that even in the days-of his mysterious 
childhood, no trifling word ever fell from those lips. If it be 
true, his enemies being witnesses, that man never spake like this 


20 


man, is it too much for his friends to believe, that never child 
spake like that child? It is however not unreasonable to sup- 
pose, that the longer he tabernacled on earth, his words increased 
in awful significance as he drew near Gethsemane and the cross, 
till in the one he cried “Oh my Father, if it be possible let this 
cup pass from me,” and on the other, ‘* My God, my God, why 
hast thou forsaken me?” And when after these unimaginable 
horrors, he bowed that divine head and said “zt is finished,” 
came forth from the darkness of Joseph’s tomb, stood on the 
mount of Olives just before sitting down a victor on his Father’s 
throne, and said, “ All power is given to me in heaven and earth ; 
go ye therefore and teach all nations, immersing them into the 
name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit ;” Oh, 
dare we even hint that one of these divine words is trifling ? 
And yet if it was a triflmg matter whether he said immerse 
or sprinkle, as most take the liberty of fancying, then it is 
impossible to shew that tmmerse was not a trifling word—an 
unmeaning phrase. 

But then Calvin was afraid, it seems, he might divide the 
church or disturb it by brawls, if he insisted on ¢mmerse. This 


was not spoken like the master in Geneva. When he had all . 


his wits about him, no man of his day knew so well, that if 
divisions and brawls arose, in consequence of our simply standing 
to Christ’s plain word, these could not be laid at our door, but 
justly belonged to those who would not bear, what the Master 
said. But when he abused his apostolic influence, to mislead all 
Reformed christendom, about his Lord’s last words; when he 
presumed to tell his followers that sprinkling would do very 
well, while he knew and acknowledged, that Christ said imMERsp, 
he did not speak like himself, but as the Dragon, and his fol- 
lowers in believing him, preferred the word of the Dragon, to the 
testimony of Jesus. 

In order to reconcile his candid admission with his popish 
practice, Calvin goes on to say, “ for the ceremony of baptism, 
in so far as it has been delivered to us by Christ, we should 
rather die a hundred deaths than allow it to be wrested from 
us.” Very well! And where has Christ delivered the ordin- 
ance to us, if not in the Apostolic Commission? Calvin allows 


~~ 


oe 


21 


that there Christ said immerse. What right has he to say 
sprinkle? He maintains that Christ said immerse believers. 
What had he to do with infants under the commission? In both 
points he contradicts his Master and plays the Pope. Still 
toiling at contradictions, the Giant of Geneva persists in his assault 
on the foundation of heaven, which is the word of the Son of God.* 
“ But since in the symbol of water, we have a testimony, not 
merely of our ablution, but of anew life, since in the water Christ 
represents his blood to us in a glass, that we may thence seek 
our cleansing ; since he teaches us that we are renewed by his 
Spirit, that dead to sin we may live to righteousness, it is certain 
we want nothing essential to baptism.” Now it is remarkable, 
that here Calvin says not one word, about sprinkling or pouring 
the water. He represents the bare presence of the element as 
sufficient, so that if the minister should barely point to the 
water, without so much as moistening his finger, nay, without 
even pointing, say the water is the symbol of the blood of Christ, 
I baptize thee in the name, &c., so far as is here taught, the 
essence of baptism would be there. It is not however in looking 
at the water as a glass merely, that we have a symbol of our 
death and resurrection with Christ. To have that symbol, we 
must be buried in the water, and rise out of it again, as our Lord 
rose out of the Jordan, and the grave, after his burial in both. 
Rom. 6: 4.— Therefore we are buried with him by immersion 
into death, that like as Christ was raised from the dead by the 
glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” 

The scholars of Germany agree in declaring immersion to be 
the meaning and the only meaning of baptisma in the New 
Testament. Schleusner, Wahl, and Bretschneider, the three 
great sacred Lexicographers, are unanimous in restricting the 
meaning of the term to immersion. Neander, Olshausen, and 
indeed all the great names in German Criticism, are agreed in 
this. Schleusner it is true falls into an odd inconsistency in de- 
fining the noun baptisma in the New Testament, immersion, and 
the verb baptizo, by wash; denying that it there means immerse. 
I call this an inconsistency ; for it is just as if we should allow 
that baptism in English means immersion, and deny at the same 


*°-Ps. 30:6; Gen. 1. -Heb. 1. 


22 


time that baptize ever means immerse. Schleusner does not 
pretend to give any reason for his singular assertion. And 
doubtless it is common enough, when a man has no reason to 
give for an opinion, to rely entirely on naked dogmatism. He 
gives baptizo in Latin as the ordinary meaning of the same word 
in Greek. This however is not explaining the language, it is 
merely throwing a mist over the light of God. If Schleusner 
believed wash to be the meaning of baptizo in the New Testa- 
ment why did he not always explain it by that meaning? Why 
wrap up the great mass of cases where the word occurs by the 
barbarous Latin baptizo—thus giving students the precious. 
information, that baptizo means baptizo. It is utterly inexcusa- 
ble, to handle God’s plain word so as to veil its meaning, lest we 
should shock the prejudices of the day in which we live. 

Yet how common has this been with the best men.. Campbell 
of Aberdeen declares the meaning of baptizo to be immerse, and 
cannot conceal his contempt for the partizans who insist on 
sprinkle or pour. Yet in his translation he uses baptize, which 
he knew as an English word in his day did not mean immerse, 
but merely christen, or religiously to sprinkle or pour. Perhaps 
he felt it might occasion ecclesiastical trouble, to be so strenuous 
about immerse, as to insert it in his translation, and as a kind of, 
compromise between conscience and convenience, put the mean- 
ing into the note, and the veil into the text. 

Calvin as we have seen is quite decided about what he calls 
the acknowledged meaning of baptizo as immerse, and yet he 
puts the very word baptizo into his Latin version. Now what 
was the sense of using a word which needed explanation, when 
the plain word which told its own meaning was at hand? If it 
was his intention to prevent the reader from feeling continually 
the jar between the practice of Geneva, and the clear command 
of Christ, he certainly took the best plan to carry it into effect. 
But I am altogether unwilling to suppose this, as he again and 
again acknowledges in his commentary, that the word means 
immerse, and that John and Christ immersed. Still it is clear 
the Latin word baptizo in Calvin’s day, no more than baptize in 
ours, meant immerse. It was merely an ecclesiastical term 
denoting a religious ceremony ; else why did he find it necessary 


v” 


23 


again and again to tell his reader that John and Christ immersed. 
Had he translated Matthew, in accordance with the Greek lan- 
guage and the truth of the case, he would have said, “ Then came 
Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be immersed by 
him.” And so the Eunuch would have been made to say, 
“Behold water! what hinders me from being immersed ;” and 
the narrative would have declared, ‘‘ And both Philip and the 
Eunuch went down into the water, and he immersed him.” 
Had Calvin translated thus, he would have allowed the Holy 
Spirit to speak the same ideas in Latin, that he formerly did in 
Greek. And this surely would have been better, than first to 
constrain him, to utter the jargon of Jerome, and the man of sin, 
and then, compelled by fidelity to the truth, to expound the 
word, lest his readers should be puzzled or misled. 

Jerome, in transferring the word into the Vulgate, merely 
copied the Italic version, which some make as ancient as the 
second century. But even in that early age, Christ’s simple 
ordinance had become contaminated by human additions. The 
sign of the cross, anointing with oil, and the use of milk and 
honey, were all already appended ; and consequently the word 
baptizo, whether used by the Greeks in Corinth or by the 
Latins of Rome, would necessarily now express a great deal more 
than it did as used by Plato, and Josephus, and Paul. Im- 
mergere in Latin, no more than baptizo in Greek, could express 
ali that superstition was now cramming into the rite; and we 
have no difficulty in understanding why the Italic translator 
should have felt it necessary to transfer the word and not to 
translate it. By this means all inconvenient scruples and ques- 
tions, about the original simplicity of the ordinance, were cut 
off. 

Dr. Robinson also adopts the plan of transferring the word, in 
the great majority of instances where it occurs. Indeed there is 
a remarkable similarity between his article and Schleusner’s. 
This is the more noticeable as he does not refer to Schleusner at 
all in the preface to his last edition, while he mentions Bretsch- 
neider and Wahl, as cultivators of sacred criticism, since his 
former edition in 1836. Schleusner published his third edition 
in 1807, and yet Dr. R., notwithstanding what he calls the 


24 


“onward progress of science” since °36, brings forward the 
blunders of fifty years and more, while he says not one word of 
what Bretschneider has done. Where he deviates from Schleus- 
ner he goes wrong—singularly, glaringly wrong. The very high 
reputation which Dr. R. deservedly enjoys, makes it only the 
more imperative, that his errors as a professor of sacred literature, 
and the public teacher of thousands of ministers by the press, 
should not be concealed. 

1. Dr. Robinson avoids Schleusner’s inconsistency of making 
the noun baptisma always signify immersion in the New Testa- 
ment, and yet denying that its verb baptizo, ever there signifies 
immerse. This was a little too gross and therefore Dr. R. trans- 
lates baptisma baptism, and makes it not quarrel with its parent 
baptizo. But then to secure this harmony, he suppresses, (unin- 
tentionally of course,) the truth which Schleusner acknowledges, 
that baptisma always means immersion in the New Testament. 
But like most desperate attempts to secure peace, when at bottom 
there is no peace, the Dr.’s device fails. For he allows that 
figuratively, baptisma signifies Matt. 20: 22, 23. overwhelming 
calamities. Now it would be singular, if an overwhelming 
calamity were called figuratively baptisma, if baptisma literally 
were not something overwhelming. So hard is it for error to be 
consistent. 

2. Like Schleusner Dr. R. next states the classical meaning of 
baptizo,and corrects him by declaring it to mean invariably im- 
merse, on which point Schleusner is not explicit. But then 
what he adds spoils the definition.* For he says the word also 


means to immerse partially to the breast, and quotes in proof ~ 


Polybius, “ the infantry immersed up to the breasts.” Now it is 
almost too plain for remark, that, so far as this passage is con- 
cerned, the idea of partialness is not contained in the word. 
The partialness of the operation is implied in the phrase wp fo, 
and the limit of the operation is marked by the word breast. 
As well might Dr. R. in explaining bapio have told us it means 
to dip partially, and have referred in proof to Aristophanes, who 


* I observe that Prof. Ripley in a very scholarlike article on Prof. Robinson’s 
Lexicon, in the Chris. Review for July, has inadvertently approved of Dr. R.’s 
definition of the classical meaning, Prof. Crawford, of Georgia, in a learned 
critique in the Chris. Index, has clearly pointed out the mistake. 


pe 


25 


told the Athenians, that Socrates dipped the feet of a flea in wax, 
to try how far it could leap. Here it might be alleged by some 
partial lexicographer, bapto means to dip, very partially, for it 
is applied to the feet of a flea; and he would just have been as 
reasonable as Dr. R. He evidently attaches great importance to 
this discovery* of partialness in the meaning of baptizo. We 
have it again with all the emphasis of italics, at the beginning of 
the note at the close of the article. ‘“ While in Greek writers, 
as above exhibited from Plato onwards, baptizo is everywhere to 
sink, to immerse, to overwhelm either wholly or partially.” 
The Doctor actually seems to think it more important, that the 
reader should believe in the partialness, than in the totality of the 
operation. And should his new doctrine be generally received, 
paedobaptist ministers will have a cheaper way of quieting the 
scruples of some of their people, than taking them to the rivers 
and ponds for total immersion. They may persuade them, that 
the word does not classically, nor necessarily, call for immersing 
the whole body, but merely a part of the body, and that if the 
babe’s little finger, or the tip thereof, be fairly dipped, the 
ordinance has been administered by immersion, and the little one 
has been introduced to the church, primitively, and classically: 
and then the good brethren, who are so scandalized by the Bap- 
tist’s bigotry about much water, may have the satisfaction of 
seeing the baptismal basin, dwindle beautifully into a lady’s 
thimble, as the baptistery has shrunk into the basin. How 
strange, that a man so learned as the Doctor, did not observe that 
partialness had no more to do with the word, than putting saliva 
on the child’s nose, or blowing on the water, have to do with 
baptism. The priest of Rome puts these ingredients into his 
ordinance of baptism, with just the same propriety as Dr. R. 
puts his partialness into his article on baptizo. 

3. There is a notable difference between Dr. Robinson’s two 


*T find that Dr. R. is not entitled to this compliment. John Owen, so far as I 
know, was the first who insisted on the idea of partialness. Dr. Miller took the 
hint and improved on it, for he actually told his readers that an inspired Evange- 
list says, “a man is baptized when his hands only arg washed.”” No man who 
knew Dr. M. will doubt his sincerity. Those who know nothing of baptism but 
what he tells them, will no doubt be satisfied with his simple assertions; for he 
brings no proof. I should not have expected Dr. R. to follow these eminent men 
in this. 

3 


26 


editions of his Lexicon. The former has the following significant 
note :— 

“In the primitive churches, where, according to oriental habits, 
bathing was to them what washing is to us, the ordinance 
appears to have been ordinarily, though not necessarily, per- 
formed by immersion.” 

I call this note significant; for it plainly implies that the 
ordinary meaning of the word in the New Testament must be 
immerse. If the primitive churches ordinarily immersed, then 
the common meaning of the word in the Acts of the Apostles 
must be immerse. And then what becomes of Dr. R.’s distine- 
tion (which he borrows from Schleusner) between the classical 
meaning of baptizo tmmerse, and the sacred meaning wash ? 
Does it not seem to vanish? Perhaps the Doctor found out, that 
the former note was an awkward admission. At all events he 
drops it in his second edition, and gives a much longer and very 
different one from the last. He now denies that bathing is as 
common with the orientals as washing is with us; for he 
declares : 

“ Aoainst the idea of full immersion in these cases (he means 
at Pentecost) there lies a difficulty apparently insuperable in the 
scarcity Of water.” 

And again :— 


“The same scarcity of water forbade the use of private baths 
as a general custom ; and thus also further precludes the idea of 
bathing in the passages referred to.” 

If then the primitive churches generally immersed, and this 
the Doctor does not yet deny, that immersion could not have been 
of the same nature as our common washing; and consequently 
the old resource of oriental habits and hot climate, fails. To 
avoid one annoyance, the Doctor falls into another more perplex- 
ing and perilous. 

4, Dr. Robinson’s first New Testament meaning of baptizo, 
is wash. In this he agrees with Schleusner. To make out this 
remarkable deviation from classical use, he appeals to Luke 11: 
38, compared with Mark 7: 2,3. He says the baptizo of Luke 
is niptomat in Mark. But it is a palpable mistake, though 
Schleusner wrote so, fifty yearsago. Baptizo is not niptomat in 


x 


27 


Mark, nor any where else. The verse in Mark, to compare with 
that in Luke, is not the 2d or 3d, but the 4th, for there the same 
word is used, and the same species of superstition is referred to. 
Besides, the Doctor goes on to identify baptizo with lowo. Now 
if baptizo is in one place the same with niptomaz, and in another 
the same with Jowo, then by the axiom that things that are 
equal to the same thing are equal to one another—lowo and 
niptomai must have the same meaning. But this Dr. R. dis- 
tinctly denies. For he tells us that lowo always means washing 
the whole body, while he is equally sure that niptomai always 
expresses a partial washing. And no doubt when baptizo is out 
of his mind, he is perfectly accurate in distinguishing the mean- 
ings of lowo and niptomaz ; and therefore he must be wrong on 
that troublesome word. 

He gives a color to his perversion of baptizo, by falling into a 
similar mistake about the meaning of the corresponding Hebrew 
root Jabal, which he says is Rachatz in 2 Kings 5:10. Now 
his own Gesenius shews the absurdity of this, who never men- 
tions wash as a meaning of Jabal, nor dip as a meaning of 
Rachatz. To say that the one is used for the other in that 
chapter, is sorry criticism. They are used for each other there, 
just as dip and wash are used in the English version of the same 
passage ; yet what sort of critic would he be in English, who 
should pretend on that account, that dip and wash are just the 
same in our language? But what would expose any one to 
contempt in plain English, is vastly profound exegesis in Greek. 
What would provoke laughter in the kitchen, is listened to with 
silent admiration in the college. 

The next example is Judith. No reason is given why she 
could not immerse herself in the night, in the camp of Holofernes, 
We have no right to suppose a new meaning to a word, when 
the only known meaning may be understood. 

The last example is that of the person defiled by touching a 
corpse, (Ec. 35: 25,). But why should mere washing be sup- 
posed here, when the law of Moses (Num. 19: 19,) required 
such a man to be bathed, which is washing by ‘dipping; and it 
is to this that the Apocrypha refers. And this is all that can 
be brought forward to shew that baptizo in its sacred use means 


28 


wash, lave, and cleanse by washing. They who are convinced 
by such reasons, are surely not hard to satisfy. It is very 
remarkable, that Dr. R. should have deemed such evidence, 
sufficient to upset the classical established meaning of the word. 
More especially, as in this he differs from all those whom he 
recognizes as the first names in modern criticism—W ahl, Brets- 


chneider, De Wette, and Meyer; and follows the antiquated ~ 


Schleusner. He tells us “the progress of science in this depart- 
ment has been onward,” and quotes those as the latest cultivators. 
But their conclusions, though supported by the literature of all 
ages, he rejects. True, indecd, he is not bound to follow these, 
nor-any men, if he can prove them wrong. An appeal always 
lies from Lexicons and comments, to the original authors. But 
this proof has not been furnished. What is brought forward, 
amounts merely, as we have just shewn, to assertions and suppo- 
sitions and plain mistakes. 

5. Like Schleusner, Dr. Robinson next tells us that baptizo 
means to baptize. And this, like his predecessor, he makes the 
common meaning. Still the question comes up; but what does 
baptize mean in all these passages? The Doctor answers, to 
administer the rite of baptism. Well but what is that? It is 
clear Dr. R. does not know. This is strong language, but I ap- 
peal to every impartial man whether it is too strong. For he 
has put on record these words: “in Hellenistic usage, and 


especially in reference to the rite of baptism, it (baptizo) would © 


seem to have expressed not always simply immersion, but the 
more general idea of ablution or affusion.” Mark the hesitation. 
“ Seem” indeed! Have we nothing but seemings to guide us 
in obeying Christ? Baptizo “when referring to the rite in 
the New Testament sErms not always to express simply tm- 


a eae wd, : 
merse !”? This implies that sometimes, or rather generally, at 


all events sometimes, it (baptizo) does express simply immer- 
sion when referring to the rite in the New Testament. Now 
where? In what text? The Doctor does not inform us. He 
gathers up all the instances, in which the word refers to the rite, 
and labels them in the lump, baptize. But which of them, and 
how many, mean simply immerse; and which, and how many, 
wash or affuse—he gives us no clue to find out. Was this not 


29 


because he really had no clue himself? Let us take the Apos- 
tolic Commission, which is one of the bundle of texts marked 
baptize. What does Dr. R. suppose our Lord meant when he 
commanded the disciples, baptizesthai? Was it simply im- 
merse, or wash, or affuse them ? He is too wise to say with 
some of the atheAlehic ones, that Christ means any or all of the 
three. He hesitates, because he feels that one must be meant, 
and he is afraid to say which ; and therefore takes refuge in the 
decent ambiguity of baptize, which is so accommodating as to » 
say any thing that any one pleases to fancy. But this is not to 
explain the Savior’s command. It is to wrap it up. Were the 
other discourses of the Son of God so handled, they would be 
shrouded in darkness. The light of the world would be put 
out. And it is plain were Dr. R. favoring the world with a 
translation of the New Testament, and were he to render baptizo 
by baptie, he would be putting his readers off with a word 
which he does not himself understand, because in a book devoted 
to the very purpose of telling us what it means, he is forced to 
confess, he has failed to make it plain. And if the supposed 
version of Dr. R. would be dark on the rite of baptism, as dark 
as his Lexicon, then it is undeniable, the common version on 
this point can be no clearer to him ; and if to him, then surely 
to most of its readers. Who, then, will say that Dr, R. and the 
millions like him, do not need, so far at least as this word is 
concerned, a corrected version ? 

6. Dr. Robinson, following Schleusner, has a long paragraph 
on the tropical or figurative application of baptizo. 'This he 
allows, has always in it the idea of overwhelming. But as we 
asked before on the noun baptisma, how can the word always 
mean figuratively some overwhelming operation, unless literally 
it mean to overwhelm. For example, he expounds Matt. 3: 11, 
“He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire,” as 
meaning, “he shall overwhelm you in (with) all spiritual gifts ; 
he shall overwhelm you in (with) fire.’ Now how should the 
Baptist have told his hearers, figuratively, that Christ would 
overwhelm them in (with) all spiritual gifts, and in (with) fire, 
if he himself did not literally overwhelm his disciples in (with) 
the waters of the Jordan? Andif Dr. R. is thus compelled to 

3% 


30 


allow that John’s baptism was an overwhelming in (with) 
water, can he shew the difference between the admitted over- 
whelming operation, and the denied immersing one? How 
could John so conveniently, so naturally, overwhelm his 
disciples in (with) the Jordan, as by dipping them im it. Nay, 
as if to put all this beyond the possibility of doubt or denial, 
Dr. R. actually declares that this figurative meaning of over- 
whelming, directly alludes to the rite. Is it possible then that 
the rite itself is not an overwhelming one ? 

7. But how has Dr. Robinson found out all at once this 
scarcity of water in Jerusalem ? He published the first Edition 
of his Lexicon in 1836. The year following he visited Jerusa- 
lem, and actually measured some of its cisterns, and both the 
upper and lower pools. Surely, then, he is entitled to speak 
with authority, concerning the water of the city of the Great 
King. Happily, he has published his travels in the Ea, and has 
thereby conferred the highest obligations on all the students of 
the Bible. .« Now I must appeal from Dr. R. the Lexicographer, 


to Dr. R. the most accurate and erudite of travellers. In his — 


Researches in Palestine, &c. Vol. 1, pp. 479, &c. he demonstrates 
that Jerusalem was, and is, a city most admirably watered. It 
is mainly supplied by cisterns. The house in which Dr. R. 
resided had four—the largest measuring 30 feet long, 30 broad, 
and 20deep. And this was only an example of the better class 
of houses. ‘ Almost every house in Jerusalem is understood to 
have one or two.” The temple alone, from its immense reser- 
voirs, could afford the city a tolerable supply. In addition there 
were the two public pools, besides Siloam and the fountains. 
After surveying all this, and publishing it, Dr. R. brings out a 
second edition of his Lexicon, and tells the world, that— 


“ Against the idea of a total immersion of the Pentecostal 


converts, there lies the difficulty, apparently insurmountable of 


a scarcity of water.” 

In 1836 he had no difficulty about a full immersion. But in 
1850, after measuring Mr. Lanneau’s cisterns, and Gihon, and 
the lower pool, he is compelled to give up the full immersion of 
the 8000, and of course to drop the note of 736, which declared 
bathing as common with the orientals as washing wlth us. One 


Pa 


31 


would think the Doctor must have forgotten when he published 
his new edition in 1850, what he had been doing 13 years before 
in Jerusalem. But he actually tells us in his notes on baptizo: 


“The city is, and was, supplied from its cisterns and public 
reservoirs. [See Bib. Res. in Pales., pp. 479, 516. From neither 
of these sources could a supply have been well obtained for the 
immersion of 8000 persons.” 

What, all the cisterns not able to supply water for the immer- 
sion of 8000. The upper pool with its million and more cubic 
feet ; the lower with its six millions and more, backed by all the 
cisterns of the city and the tanks of the temple; aLu could not 
WELL supply sufficient water to immerse 8000 persons. Why 
this is extraordinary. Is Dr. R. prepared to shew the impossi- 
bility of Mr. Lanneau’s cisterns alone furnishing an adequate 
supply ?. Has he ever made a calculation on the point? I 
doubt. it. He is indeed experimentally acquainted with the 
waters of Jerusalem, but he evidently knows nothing experi- 
mentally of immersion. 

8. Dr. Robinson in his note mentions, as a third consider- 
ation, why baptizo in sacred Greek cannot mean simply im- 
merse, that :— 

“Tn the earliest Latin versions of the New Testament, as for 
example the Itala, which Augustine regarded as the best of all, 
(De Doct. Chris. 2: 15,) and which goes back apparently to the 
second century, and to usage connected with the Apostolic 
age (!?), the Greek word baptizo is uniformly given in its 
Latin form baptizo, and is never translated by tmmergo, or any 
like word, shewing there was something in the rite of baptism 
to which the latter did not correspond.” 

Undoubtedly there was too much in the rite of baptism, as 
practised in the 2d century. with which immergo could not 
correspond ; there was crossing, anointing, and eating honey 
and milk. And if the learned Italian did not wish, that these 
intruders into the simplicity of Christ’s ordinance, should be 
unmasked and expelled, he could not do better than disguise 
them under cover of the foreign term. And this convenient 
covering up of human additions to the ordinance, is not the only 
effect of transferring instead of translating the word. If men 
have taken from Christ’s ordinance, as well as added to it ; if 


32 


sprinkling has been substituted for immersion, the simple device 
of transferring will equally veil the mutilation, as for 1700 years 
it has done the additions. And while I would be very sorry to 
accuse a man, so highly respectable as Dr. R., of an intentional 
suppression of the truth, still if Clement and Chrysostom, 
speaking their own language, Luther and Calvin, Beza and 
Bossuet, Salmasius and Milton, Casaubon and Bentley, Selden 
and Porson, Wahl and Bretscheider and Anthon, are not all 
mistaken ; then the truth is suppressed in his new Lexicon, for 
he does not say that baptizo in the New Testament ever, cer- 
tainly, in a single text, means simply immerse. 

9. Dr. Robinson gives as his last reason why baptizo cannot 
always mean simply immerse in the New Testament,—the 
smallness of the Greek Fonts at Tekoah and Gophna. The 
reader is assured :— 

“The baptismal fonts still found among the ruins of the 
most ancient Greek churches in Palestine, as at Tekoa and 
Gophna, and going back apparently to very early times, are not 
large enough to admit of the baptism of adult persons by im- 
mersion ; and were obviously never intended for that use.”—[ See 
Bib. Res. in Pal. | 

“ Were obviously never intended for that use!” What use ? 
Immersion? Why might not a babe be inimersed in a font 4 
feet by 3 feet 9 inches? Unless immersion were practised 
when these fonts were used, why should they have been 
made so large? But the Doctor is speaking of adult immersion : 
and who does not see that in putting in the qualification of adult, 
he forgot what he was about? What he undertook was to 
shew why baptizo could not always mean simply immerse, 
when referring to the rite in the New Testament, and he appeals 
to the fonts to shew that a man could not be immersed in them! 
The point is, were these fonts not made for immersion? This 
the Doctor must allow, unless he will have it they were made 
to accommodate the fingers of a sprinkler or a pourer. Surely 
dipping is dipping, whether the subject is a babe or a man—a 
moth ora mammoth. Neither is there any propriety in telling 
us how ancient the fonts were. The more ancient they are, the 
more ancient do they demonstrate immersion to have been. And 
if we are told they also prove the antiquity of infant immersion, 


33 


they prove nothing that any one thinks of denying. Infant 
immersion came in with infant communion in the érd century. 
Will the Doctor undertake to prove his fonts were built in the 
1st century or even the 2d? Ina word, when he admits the 
fonts are Greek, he gives up all, so far as immersion is con- 
cerned, for who does not know that the Greek church always 
immersed ? 

I have thus taken up every point brought forward by Dr. 
Robinson, on the meaning of the word employed by Christ, to 
designate his initiatory ordinance; and I leave every impartial 
reader to judge what weight really belongs to them. If one so 
learned can say so little, to vindicate a deviation from immersion 
in this solemn rite, the inference seems irresistible that such 
deviation is absolutely without excuse. 

Dr. Miller assures us that “immersion is not-even the common 
meaning of the word.” In his prefatory notice he tells us he 
did not write for the learned but for common readers. As these 
would, in a great measure, be dependent on his authority for 
their views of Christ’s ordinance, it was imperatively required, 
that he should be very careful not, even unintentionally, to mis- 
lead them. It is truly painful to think of a good man abusing 
the great influence he may have received, in drawing away thou- 
sands of simple men from the command of the Lord. Whether 
such is the case here, let the impartial reader judge. Dr. M. 
refers to the Lexicographers. But we have seen that those ‘of 
highest name are decidedly against him. Besides, the evidence 
of Lexicographers must be kept in its own place—which is 
merely secondary. The makers of Lexicons have their preju- 
dices as well as other men, and these prejudices will pervert the 
truth, when they come into play. No workman will allow his 
own work to strike him in the face, if he can helpit. Ona 
controverted point, like that of Baptism, we are bound to make 
allowance for the partiality of the Lexicographer. If Dr. Carson 
or Dr. Gill had left a lexicon behind him, there would have been 
little use in bringing forward his definition of baptizo: the 
peedobaptist would have reasonably objected; Dr. C. or Dr. G. 
was a Baptist; of course he will say all he can for his own side. 
Now, the fact -happens to be, that all the lexicographers are 


34 


peedobaptists. Should we, then, not make allowance for this 
fact, in judging of what some say about washing, as a meaning 
of baptizo? And what irresistible force does this consideration 
lend the testimony of Wahl, and Bretschneider, and Schleusner ! 
They are not speaking for their party ; but against it. Their 
knowledge and honesty, as Philologians, triumph over their 
feelings as peedobaptists and partizans ; and they assure us that 
‘ baptismos, in the New Testament, means immersion and im- 
mersion alone. If, ‘in the mouth of two or three witnesses 
every word must be established,” where can we find witnesses 
more competent than these ? : 

Dr. M. actually asserts, and, I perceive, the latest edition con- 
tinues the assertion in all its primitive strength, “ All impartial 
judges—by which I mean, all the most profound and mature 
Greek scholars, who are neither theologians nor sectarians, agree 
in pronouncing that the term in question, imports the applica- 
tion of water by sprinkling, affusion,” &c. Now, this is curious. 
The Dr. seems to imply that theologians and sectarians are sus- 
picious witnesses. But this rule would go far to exclude the 
testimony of Dr. M. himself, for surely he was a theologian, and 
though not a sectarian, yet, at all events, a stiff stickler for Pres- 
bytery. Why, then, should he seem to rely so much on his 
own bare word, telling his simple readers, “I assure you, the 
word does signify the application of water in any way ”? 
“ What does such arguing prove,” except that Dr. M. thought 
his party and himself right? If his testimony were against 
himself, then we might allow it great weight. The Baptist might 
then appeal with great force to his evidence, and any prejudice 
or sectarianism that might attach to the Dr.’s character, so far 
from weakening what he admitted, would go to establish it, just 
in proportion to the bias that drew him aside; for the stronger 
the bias, the greater the force of opposing evidence would it 
require to be overcome. Now it is highly absurd, to fancy that 
the force of Calvin’s testimony, in behalf of the exclusive mean- 
ing of baptizo, as immerse, can be evaded, by saying he was 
prejudiced and a sectarian ; because his prejudice and sect were 
not favored by baptizo meaning immerse, but the very opposite. 
And consequently, the bitterer his hatred of the anabaptists, as 


~*~ 


35 


he called them, the clearer must the meaning of baptizo have 
been, to compel even him to allow, that in this fundamental 
point in the dispute, they were right. 

So with regard to Beza. It is generally allowed that, admira- 
ble scholar and good man as he was, his great defect, as a trans- 
lator, was his proneness to give things a twist, so as to make the 
Holy Spirit speak Calvinistically. But, strong as his prejudice 
might be, it was not strong enough to make him maintain, with 
Dr. Miller, that baptizo means sprinkling. On the contrary, he 
declares it is certain, Christ commands us to be immersed 
There may be too much reason to fear, that both Calvin and 
Beza were not absolutely unwilling to burn the baptists ; but 
they would not belie them, by putting them in the wrong, when 
they knew them to be right. How overwhelming, then, must 
the evidence for the Baptists have been, to compel them to such 
an admission. The truth is, they were both profoundly learned 
and thoroughly honest, and, therefore, they would speak what 
they knew to be true. Had either their learning or their honesty 
been less, the result might have been different. 

As to the assertion that ‘all the most profound and mature 
Greek scholars agree in baptizo signifying sprinkling, pouring,” 
&c., it is singular how Dr. Miller ever ventured on making it ; 
and it is still more remarkable how the scholars on the Presby- 
terian Board should allow it to stand unerased. “ ALL the most 
profound,” &c.!! Why, Casaubon was surely tolerably pro- 
found ;—did he say so? Bentley was certainly no blockhead,— 
but he says baptismos is dipping. Porson’s head, it is allowed, 
was not always very clear ; but it has never been alleged, that 
he was maudlin when he smiled and said, the Baptists were right 
about baptizo. The simple truth is, and no man, having any 
regard to his standing as a scholar, will venture to gainsay it, 
these three are “the first three” for knowledge of Greek, in 
England’s literary history. 'They all concur that baptizo means 
immerse, but not sprinkle; and yet not one of them was a 
Baptist ; and who ever called them either theologians or sectari- 
ans? The assertion, therefore, is one of the most astounding 
ever fallen into by a man so respectable as the late Dr. Miller. 
So far from all the first-rate Grecians agreeing that baptizo 


36 


means sprinkle, there is not a single one that ever said so. The 
only authority mentioned by Dr. M., is John Owen. Doubtless 
he was aman of extraordinary erudition and profound piety. 
Still, no scholar will ever think of him, when talking of the 
Casaubons and Bentleys, who have made Grecian literature what 
it is. THe was, besides a great theologian, and astaunch Congrega- 
tionalist, and so far an incompetent witness, according to Dr. 
M.’s test. Let him go for what he is worth; he refutes Dr. 
M., for he does not affirm thatthe word means to sprinkle. He 
says, its original and natural meaning is to dip, though it also 
signifies (as he thinks) to wash, to pour. Even the Dr.’s favor- 
ite authority, then, is against him ; nay, his testimony, so far as 
it goes, settles the whole controversy. For, if the natural 
meaning of baptizo is to immerse, it were strange, indeed, that 
a Lawgiver so wise, so condescending to the simple, so consider- 
ate of the poor, so sympathetic with his little ones, as our ador- 
able King always is, should proclaim his law of baptism in a 
word employed in an unnatural sense. 

Dr. Miller asserts there is not the smallest probability that 
John ever immersed. But Calvin not only tells us it is proba- 
ble he did; he svys,itis certain. ‘‘ We clearly see it,” says the 
candid learned Reformer. All the great scholars that have lived 
since the Baptist, say nothing else. What, then, are we to 
think of these things? It is high time that an expurgated edi- 
tion of the Dr.’s work were prepared by the Presbyterian Board, 
and that the superior learning that still shines on Princeton, 
should arise and dispel such darkness. 

IV. ‘Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have 
commanded you.” This injunction is at once very comprehen- 
sive, very precise, and very significant. “ All things,” not one 
thing, even the least was to be left out. No matter how much 
the things might differ in relative importance. In so far as they 
were commanded by Christ, they all stood on a level, and it was 
impossible to tamper with what might seem the least, without 
implicit rebellion. “ Whosoever shall break one of these least 
commandments, and shall teach men so, the same shall be called 
least in the kingdom of heaven.” But not only does the lan- 
guage imply that we must not come short of what Christ has 


nt 4 


re eee 


37 


commanded, it is equally precise in rebuking all that goes be- 
yond or beside Christ’s word. Even those who profess to have 
come out from Rome, insist on the right of the church to legis- 
late in things indifferent, and they make very loud, and very 
exclusive pretensions to be the successors of the Apostles too. 
But did not Christ prohibit the Apostles teaching anything but 
what he had commanded? And if Peter dared not go beyond 
whatsoever Christ commanded, what.shall we think of him who 
continually dinning us about apostolic authority, gives com- 
mands which Christ never gave, and Peter never dreamed of. 
T care not whether he pretend to be a successor of the Apostles, 
or an Apostle himself, I must hold him in this, antichristian. 

This plain view of Christ’s word settles the question of com- 
munion,in the Lord’s Supper. “Do this in remembrance of 
me,” was one of the things which Christ had commanded his 
Apostles. In this last commission, he distinctly commands the 
apostles to immerse believers, before instructing them about 
their privilege of eating the supper. This is His order, and 
who may subvert it? 'The Apostles evidently understood it so. 
The first thing the Pentecostal converts were commanded to do 
was to be immersed ; and then, and-not till then, did they unite 
with the church in the breaking of bread. And whatever lib- 
erty professors have taken with the other arrangements of 
Christ, there is no denomination that has not insisted on putting 
Baptism before the Supper in the order of observance. There 
is, however, a special odium attached by many to the Baptists, 
on the score that they will not eat the supper out of their. own 
circle. But the censure is mistaken. Baptists do not seek to 
please themselves in this, nor to arrogate peculiar claims to 
sanctity. They simply desire to obey their Master. They be- 
lieve with Calvin, that Christ, in the commission, has com- 
manded believer immersion, and they dare not substitute for 
this, infant sprinkling. This they believe is a mere human in- 
vention, that mistakes sprinkling for immersion, and a babe for 
a believer. And it is impossible for them to admit any one to 
the Lord’s table, who has not been immersed on a credible 
profession of his faith in Christ, without deliberately disobeying 
what they are solemnly convinced is their Lord’s will. 


38 


V, and lastly. The blessed assurance of his presence till he 
come again, “and lo I am with you alway, even to the end of 
the world.” This, then, is our joy, that we are not alone. In 
preaching salvation through his name, He is with us. In im- 
mersing the believers, He is with us. In teaching the immersed 
believers to observe the ordinance of the breaking of bread, and 
in doing as we teach, He is with us. This consoles us in the 
midst of multiplying and mistaken censures from those we love 
and over whom we yearn. Lord, thou knowestit is for thy sake 
thy people subject themselves to misapprehension and dislike. 
But even though we may be hated for doing as thou hast com- 
manded, thy presence, thine approbation, are more than a com- 
pensation. Give us thy patience, thy love, that if we are reviled, 
we may not revile again, but, contrariwise, bless. Are we not 
called to inherit a blessing? Art thou not even now saying to 
us, “ fear not little flock, itis your Father’s good pleasure to give 
you the kingdom.” Our debts then shall not depress us, for 
they are our’s no more; they have disappeared in the fountain 
of thy blood; and thy divine righteousness is a full equivalent 
for the kingdom that cannot be moved, and as that righteonsness 
has been made ours through faith, we know that we are mon- 
archs in disguise. We love thine appearing. We pant for the 
crown. Come then, O Thou beloved of thy Father; the Spirit 
and the Bride say come! Thy Bride, Thy blood-bought, blood- 
washed Bride, cries come quickly! All creation is in labor pangs 
for Thy presence. Come, oh Son of man, from thy Father’s 
throne, and welcome her, for whom thou didst die, to her place 
on thine own throne, at that side which the spear PIERCED FOR 
HER. 


ee | 


a 


CONTENTS. 


The Ordinance of Baptism founded in Christ’s Universal Authority. + - 
The Commission concerns believers only—conceded by Calvin. - - - 
Calvin’s twofold definition of a sacrament excludes Infants from Baptism 
Also, the definition of the Shorter Catechism. 

Calvin’s Anti-Puseyism—Calvin’s Puseyism 

Calvin’s contradiction pervades all Reformed formulas and confessions— 
Westminster Shorter Catechism and Confession. 

Heidelbergh Catechism, &c., &c.—Episcopal Churches. 

Circumcision no ground for Infant Baptism—Council of Jerusalem—@ala- 
tians—Timothy. ; : 

Circumcision sealed Abraham’s faith, but not Isaac’s, &e. 

The promise to the seed threefold—The meaning of Circumcision threefold 

Twins of the 3d century—The Scholars of Germany allow that the Apos- 
tles knew nothing of Infant Baptism—yet defend it. Neander’s pre- 
sumption. 

Use to be made of the Germans. 

Baptizomeans nothing but Immerse.—Twelve Witnesses. . : 

Calvin allows that John immersed Christ.—The current of criticism, past 
and present, flows the same way. . 

Christ’s command, expounded and enforced by his example, explicit.— 
Calvin’s Inconsistency. 

(Romans 6: 3, 4.) Calvin’s Comment on the Eunuch seems to imply that 
Christ’s Word may be of small moment. 

Christ never spake a trifling word. 

Calvin plays the Pope on Baptism.—Believer Immersion, and the founda- 
tion of Heaven, identical. 

Sacred Lexicographers of Germany, Schleusner, Wahl, and Bretschneider, 
unanimous that daptisma means nothing but immersion.—Inconsis- 
tency of Schleusner.—Campbell of ‘Aberdeen. 

Calvin owght to have translated the word immerse. ; - 


39 


17 


18 


19 
20 


21 


22 
23 


40) 

Dr. Robinson mainly copies Schleusner on baptizo,—where he differs, 
falls into errors of his own.—1. Dr. R. does not literally explain bap- ® 
tisma. Seb teat tae aie vise SN, A eee lye See ate} b& 

2. Dr. R. spoils the classical meaning of the word. 5 : ; : 25 

38. Dr. R. takes back a former admission, but falls into a greater difficulty. 26 ? 

4. Dr. R.’has no good reasons for making any difference between baptizo nat 
in the classics and in the Scriptures,&c. . . . 5 is opel = 

5. Dr. R. does not know the meaning of baptize, and needs a version that 
shall explain it. . : ; : 4 . : é : : . 28 29 

6. Dr. R. inconsistent on the figurative meaning of the word. . - eS) 4 

7. Dr. R.’s singular perplexity as a Lexicographer, contrasted with his . 
accuracy as a Traveller. 3 . ; ; : ; . 30 31 | 

8. Dr. R. mistakes the bearing of the fact that the ola Latin version did 
not render baptizo by immergo. . 3 3 ; ; - dl . 

9. Dr. R.,in what he says about the fonts of Tekoah and anaes forgets 
what he is about. ee eh 5 ‘ ; 3 ae 32 : 

Dr. Miller claims the Lexicographers; whereas the best of them are 
against him.—Great force of the fact that these are not Baptists. = 20 b | 

Dr. M. claims all the great Greek scholars,—whereas there is not one on 
his side.—Dr. M. mistakes the value of his own assertion on the mean- © 
‘ng of baptizo.— Peculiar force of Calvin’s and Beza’stestimony. . 84 35 > 

Dr. M.’s solitary witness, John Owen, really against him. : , - #o8 


The Order of the Commission—enforced by Apostolic example—settles the 
question of Communion in the Supper. : ; : ; ; : 87 

Comfort of Christ’s spiritual presence.—His Advent the true hope of His 
Church. ., ; ; ; ; ; - ; , : 5 : chines 


Rape) 2th mh 


. _.3.0112 059259 i 


alee tar” tp oh age 


“THE REVISED NEW TESTAMENT, 


EDITED BY 
SPENCER H. CONE & WILLIAM H. WYCKOFF, 
ALSO, ALL PUBLICATIONS OF THE 
American Dible Union, 
3 May be procured of : 
E, H. TRIPP, BOOKSELLER AND STATIONERS 


No. 272 Greenwich Street, New York. 


E. H. T. has always for sale a GENERAL ASSORTMENT off 


BE BLES, 


from the large Folio and Quarto to the cae Pocket Editions.} i 4 | 


TESTAMENTS, HYMN BOOKS, 


USED BY THE VARIOUS DENOMINATIONS, &c., &c. ALSO, 
MISCELLANEOUS, JUVENILE & TOY BOOKS, 

SCHOOL BOOKS, . 

COPY BOOKS, SLATES, PENCILS, QUILLS, COLD AND se PENS, 0 


On the most reasonable terms, wholesale and retail. 


WRELLNS PAPERS | 


Of every kind and quality. Sermon Paper cut to size and 


ruled for Clergymens’ use. 


ee ee a i a a a a a a 8 a ee een 


A LARGE STOCK OF 
Ee Hu. AA Te Be HS @ DP @P BG Gs 


always on hand, and made to order. All of the best materials 
and workmanship. 


